Support BikePortland - Journalism that Matters

Open house will offer peeks at Central City in Motion projects

Posted by on July 22nd, 2019 at 12:40 pm

PBOT will share the latest designs for the NW Flanders bikeway and several other Central City in Motion projects at the event.

Plans only matter if the projects within them get built. That’s a mantra we’re all too familiar with.

If you’re itching to see the projects in the Central City in Motion plan see the light of day, don’t miss the open house on Tuesday night. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) will host the event at the White Stag Building (70 NW Couch) in Old Town between 5:00 and 7:00 pm. TriMet and city staff will be on hand to explain some of the projects in the queue.

Before and after on NW Everett

Among them are a new bus-only lane on NW Everett that will create better transit service between Broadway and the Steel Bridge. PBOT will start work on this project in just a few weeks. Unlike SW 4th and Madison, this new lane isn’t designed as a shared space for bicycle and bus riders. Instead it simply replaces an existing lane used by drivers and maintains auto parking lanes on both sides of the street. In fact, it appears that the project will remove existing sharrows and a bike lane that connects to the existing protected bikeway on NW Naito Parkway.

Advertisement


PBOT plans to widen the bike lanes on the Burnside Bridge and add a bus-only lane later this year.

PBOT likely sees the new NW Flanders bikeway (one block north) as the main route for bicycle users. Construction on that project is set to start next summer and they’ll have more details on it at tomorrow’s open house.

Other exciting projects you can learn more about at the event are the Burnside Street bus and bike lane project (first phase coming this fall) and a project that will create a protected bike lane on SW 4th between Salmon and Ankeny (construction in 2020).

More details on tomorrow’s open house on the BikePortland calendar.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.

NOTE: Thanks for sharing and reading our comments. To ensure this is a welcoming and productive space, all comments are manually approved by staff. BikePortland is an inclusive company with no tolerance for meanness, discrimination or harassment. Comments with expressions of racism, sexism, homophobia, or xenophobia will be deleted and authors will be banned.

30 thoughts on “Open house will offer peeks at Central City in Motion projects”

  1. Lovely blank walls where building storefronts should be, much like downtown Houston. Clearly PBOT needs some architects on its staff.

  2. Avatar Carrie says:

    Do we take away a car travel lane when we build a new road or bridge nearby? We sure don’t. But we can take away a bike travel lane (and leave room for car storage)? Why can’t our planners see the irony and/or hypocrisy?

    1. Now that I’m looking closely at the diagram, why are cars even allowed to park there, on the left-most side (right side on the picture)? Clearly there’s no car lane, so they are going to have to cross the retro bike lane as they slowly parallel park. I can already see the UPS and FedEx trucks parked in the middle of that bike lane, along with all the robot delivery units. And of course a person camping just behind the planter.

  3. It looks like PBOT is now fully staffed with recruits from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Why are there no protected intersections? I thought with Nick Falbo working at PBOT that every intersection would have protected pedestrian crossings at a minimum, but instead they show 1990s curb extensions, 1970s bike lanes, and the longest possible pedestrian crossings. It’s about as un-walkable and as pedestrian-hostile environment as any city in North Carolina, which isn’t good. And why are there no trees on the Burnside median? Are we worried that cars might have to slow down, not be able to go 20 mph over the posted speed limit?

    This is awful.

  4. Avatar Matt says:

    So, legal wrong-side-of-the-street parking? That’s just fudging great. I give it less than a month before a cyclist gets hit by a driver blindly pulling out of their parking spot.

    1. Avatar Julie H. says:

      Email Project Manager Scott Cohen, scott.cohen@portlandoregon.gov, about this. (He’s been quite responsive when I’ve reached out about things on Rosa Parks Way.) It could be terrible drawings, or it could be some really bad planning. Either way, everything is still in proposal state so asking for improvements & clarification can make a difference!

    2. In many other countries there’s no concept of a right and wrong side/direction of the street to park. As as example, check out this street in Amsterdam, where cars are parked facing both directions, on both sides of the street: https://goo.gl/maps/sQPtTwMzLUNsUcGw6

  5. Avatar Adam says:

    Why are they removing the existing sharrows/bikelane on Everett in a few weeks, yet not starting work on the NW Flanders bikeway for another year?

    1. Great question. We’ll find out at the open house.

    2. Based on streetview from 2017, the sharrows on Everett don’t start until east of NW 2nd Ave, and are in the rightmost lane. At that point the bus lane will be the center lane, which is the through lane leading onto the Steel Bridge. I don’t believe there are any sharrows or bike lanes being removed.

  6. Avatar mh says:

    Your tax dollars at work, your wishes and needs run over by thousands of SUVs.

  7. Avatar Rain Panther says:

    So, if I’m driving and want to park on the left side, all I have to do is veer head on into the oncoming bike lane? Is this for real?

    1. Avatar Rain Panther says:

      Seriously, someone remind me – what’s that double yellow line for?

  8. Avatar Buzz says:

    How can removing the bike lane and sharrows from West Everett be considered an ‘improvement’?

    And that NW Flanders drawing is just, like wow, someone is actually being hired and paid to produce designs like this? Really?

  9. Avatar Social Engineer says:

    Everyone complaining about the contraflow bicycle lane concept shown in the first image should make a field trip to NW 20th and Everett. This diverter was installed a few weeks ago and there doesn’t seem to be any problems with it so far, but time will tell. This design has been used in other cities and will soon become more prevalent here based on a combination of the Fire Bureau demanding 20 feet of clear width at all times for their trucks and the lack of any political will to remove parking – especially metered spaces.

    1. Avatar Buzz says:

      So, the fire bureau wants clear passage, the sewer bureau wants double-wide drainage grates, the transportation bureau doesn’t want to lose any parking revenue, the transit bureau wants their own unshared bus-only lanes, the pedestrians want sidewalks, curb ramps and shorter crossing distances, and the motorists want no reduction in travel lanes. That leaves precious little space left for cyclists and this situation has only gotten worse in the past 20 – 30 years, not better. I know it plays well with readers of this blog, but BikePortland is tilting at windmills if they think otherwise, and Jonathan might as well just hang it up if he thinks cyclists will be realistically accommodated in this scenario!

      1. That block of NW 20th was two-way for cars. Now it’s one way for cars and two-way for cyclists. This isn’t good evidence for you assertion that things are getting worse, not better.

      2. Avatar ContraFlowBikeLane says:

        Have you seen it in action? This was, in fact, a big upgrade for cyclists AND pedestrians in the area. It has completely calmed the intersection and that block, and those 10 or so cars parked facing the bike lane don’t move often. There are far bigger things to complain about. In removing an auto lane, this area has been substantially calmed.

    2. Avatar soren says:

      “Everyone complaining about the contraflow bicycle lane”

      I looked through this thread and could not find a single person complaining about the contraflow bicycle lane.

      People were complaining about a design that would require car/truck traffic to cross double yellow lines, drive the wrong way in a bike lane, and park the wrong direction on a roadway (three distinct violations of Oregon traffic law). And, of course, this design is not supported by NACTO design guidelines for contraflow bike lanes.

      https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/contra-flow-bike-lanes/

      1. Avatar Social Engineer says:

        And, of course, there is this language from that very NACTO link, which is far from “not supporting” this design.

        “Special consideration should be given before implementing contra-flow bike lanes adjacent to parking. Cars entering and exiting the parking lane will be maneuvering head-on with oncoming bicyclists, introducing an increased speed differential and unfamiliar traffic operations. The driver of a vehicle parked adjacent to a contra-flow lane will have reduced visibility of oncoming bicyclists when compared to parking adjacent to a with-flow bike lane. Increased bike lane width paired with parking-side buffer striping may be used to increase maneuvering space and sight distance. Most existing installations use a double yellow line to separate the contra-flow bicycle lane, however local ordinance may prohibit parking in the opposite direction of the contra-flow travel lane. A dashed yellow line, or dashed white line may also used to separate the contra-flow bicycle lane. Local urban practitioners should use best engineering judgment to determine which strategy to implement.”

        Looks like PBOT is doing exactly what NACTO calls for to improve the safety of this design.

        1. lol @ reading the link

        2. Avatar soren says:

          It’s very interesting how you spent so much time reading through the NACTO design guideline but somehow missed the guideline that directly addresses my comment:

          WHEN CONFIGURED WITHOUT PARKING, a solid double yellow lane line marking should be used to separate opposing motor vehicle travel lanes from the contraflow bicycle lane

          PS: I’ve noticed that you tend to defend PBOT alot here. Do you work for PBOT or receive money from contracts with PBOT?

          1. Avatar Social Engineer says:

            Nope…just an informed citizen. Thanks for the baseless accusation though!

          2. How do you think the text you’ve quoted supports your position?

            1. Avatar soren says:

              My post was laser focused on the fact that PBOT’s design violates Oregon law:

              People were complaining about a design that would require car/truck traffic to CROSS DOUBLE YELLOW LINES

              https://bikeportland.org/2019/07/22/open-house-will-offer-peeks-at-central-city-in-motion-projects-302651#comment-7134341

              I guess you did not notice the clause which highlights the fact that solid yellow lines are recommended for no-parking facilities (and dotted or white lines for non-parking facilities where the yellow line is illegal):

              When configured without parking, a solid double yellow lane line marking should be used

              https://bikeportland.org/2019/07/22/open-house-will-offer-peeks-at-central-city-in-motion-projects-302651#comment-7134419

              1. Maybe you’re new to reading, but “when configured without parking, a solid double yellow lane line marking should be used” does not mean “when configured with parking, a solid double yellow lane line marking should not be used”. If you click on the link you yourself provided, you’ll see that the guidance for contra-flow bike lanes adjacent to parking includes an illustration… with a double yellow line.

              2. Avatar soren says:

                My original post was not about “parking” at all. My explicit concern was the PBOT is building a facility that encourages people driving to break laws in the context of a bike facility. As far as I can tell that is also a major concern of many of those posting criticism on this thread.

              3. Your original post included an assertion that wasn’t correct, and a link to a page whose contents you clearly hadn’t bothered to read.

                With that context, I’m going to trust that the professionals working on these projects have spent more time studying the relevant laws than you have.

      2. Avatar Buzz says:

        Cyclists needn’t worry, it’s just more ‘experimental’ BS from PBOT, NACTO be damned! What’s not to like about that?

  10. Avatar alex says:

    looking forward to the #1 burnside upgrades. curious though if buses will make stops in their dedicated lanes or if we will still be playing leapfrog up e burnside..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *